The Real
Estate Agents Authority has been ordered to reopen a misconduct hearing against
Royal Oak based Ray White franchisee Martin Honey after rival Dermot Nottingham
appealed to the High Court.
Mr Nottingham’s real estate sales licence was
not renewed after Mr Honey complained to the Authority about what he called “Mr
Nottingham’s history of crime and psychopathic behaviour” in the course of a
dispute between the two over alleged misuse of internet property listings. After the Authority dismissed Mr Nottingham’s
complaints about alleged misconduct by Mr Honey, the High Court ordered a
reconsideration on grounds the Authority had apparently misunderstood the
significance of evidence provided and crucially had failed to take fresh
evidence into account.
The High Court in Auckland was told Dermot
Nottingham, Phillip Nottingham and Robert McKinney purchased the Onehunga
RE/MAX real estate franchise in October 2009.
Martin Honey operated in the neighbouring suburb of Royal Oak, initially
as a RE/MAX franchise but rebranded from February 2009 as a Ray White
franchise. Allegations followed that Mr
Honey was continuing to use the RE/MAX website for listings and sales while
maintaining his own Ray White website.
When challenged, Mr Honey said he took down the RE/MAX link in April
2010 when made aware of the issue. Mr
Nottingham alleged that Mr Honey and his web designer deliberately and
dishonestly maintained the RE/MAX link to poach business. This allegation was dismissed following a
hearing before the Real Estate Agents Authority along with a further allegation
that Mr Honey made a false complaint to the Authority about Mr Nottingham’s
behaviour in the course of their dispute.
Mr Honey sent a letter to the Authority in February 2011, with a copy forwarded
to the Minister of Internal Affairs, alleging overbearing and intimidatory
behaviour by Mr Nottingham. Mr
Nottingham said the allegations were false, designed by Mr Honey to minimise culpability
and to garner sympathy for Mr Honey and his family.
Ordering the Authority to reopen its misconduct
hearing against Mr Honey, Justice Thomas said the Authority had failed to
properly consider two matters: evidence from one of Mr Honey’s former staff who
said she had told him in July 2009 that the firm’s Ray White listings were
being duplicated on the RE/MAX website and new evidence from a former personal
assistant, now living in South Africa, stating part of her daily routine was to
load property pictures and details onto both websites as had been instructed by
Mr Honey.
Nottingham
v. Real Estate Agents Authority – High Court (10.07.15)
15.079